If you believe that acceleration is critical, then you should be willing to take some sacrifices yourself in order to build or expand. If you start making exceptions, then you are saying that acceleration and growth itself is not inherently good, but only good in _some_ places when it impacts _some_ people.
You can apply this to literally anything. This argument is silly.
My point is that any project needs to properly balance the goals of the project with the freedom and autonomy of other people. This is not saying that the goals always triumph, or that autonomy always triumphs, but that there is a balance.
You asked what this has to do with e/acc -- if e/acc is claiming progress at all costs, build at all costs, but then imposes carve outs for the freedom/autonomy of only certain people (particularly it's adherents), it's a contradiction in the project.
You mean the article where Andreessen's name is in the title of the article, right next to his picture?
(I am aware of the saying that sarcasm and subtlety does not carry through Internet posts. So to prevent mindless replies to the suggestion made - I am not necessarily saying to remove those restrictions, I am saying if I put an /e/acc hat on, it seems obvious to me this would be one of the demands for removing any barriers to AI acceleration).
Vienna. Paris. I don't know about you, but they definitely feel less cookie cutter than most of California to me.
Im very much in favor of yimby, but i understand personal preference as well. If someone in Venice Italy was against filling in canals, would you be similarly outraged?
I think there's a balance between not making every neighborhood a densely populated cookie cutter multi family dwelling and endless zoning permits that require you to file with dozens of environmental agencies with dubious impacts on environment.
But again, what does this have to do with e/acc or the article apart from being a lazy dunk on someone who has e/acc in their twitter profile